atheists: why are you against religious interferance in politics?

sometimes politicians need the clergy to give them a good telling off, for example in recent years the tory party in england have neglected the poor and focused on the rich. the churches have criticized this and said that it should not be the case that politicians be focused on profit rather than service. the catholic church at least recognizes that markets can not be free, they need government regulation to ensure that the consumers are not ripped off as is happening so often now, we need more clergy to continue to give politicians that allow this a hard time. clergy also recognize the importance of welfare and that a society can only be civilized when the government helps those who are in greatest need.

30 Answers

  • 6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    If religious people were stopped from participating in the political process then the Atheists would have no competition and could rule with an iron fist.

    The constitutional precept of separation of church and state only goes in one direction, from the state to the church. The U.S. Government cannot and does not actively endorse any one particular religion.

    There is no law that forbids the members of a religion from working for the state, voting in elections, running for office, or (legally) influencing our elected leaders.

    If one were to enforce a separation of church and state from the church to the state then over 90% of Americans would be excluded from most of the rights of citizenship.

    The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland: A Statement from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland

    With love in Christ.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    I'm not an atheist but I'm not religious in the traditional sense either. I do believe there should be a definite seperation of Church and State because many if not most religious beliefs are so personal in nature -- such as what to eat, what to wear, what to celebrate, how to celebrate it, when to bathe, when to pray, how to have sex, etc. -- that trying to make those a part of any government function would be futile. And also violent, because religions have been known to go to war over stuff like this. Any large country is going to have a vast array of religious beliefs, all at odds with each other, and the only way to make the government of a large country work is to say, "Okay, we're putting all this religious stuff aside."

    A large country that is soon going to fail for these reasons is Iraq. It is almost entirely Muslim, but has several major sects within that religion that will willingly and even eagerly kill each other over minor interpretations of their religion. If you don't think such chaos isn't possible within a nominally Christian nation, you need to think again. Less than 70 years ago a couple Christian nations were routinely, eagerly and lethally liquidating a non-Christian religion from their midst.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    I answered this on your previous question and am pasting it here.

    I'm certain Lili, the certified historian (above) will agree with an enormous generalization that can be made from an extensive knowledge of history. There are no exceptions to this. If you want to see religion at its most corrupt and secular government at its most abusive and evil, allow the two to be partners for the benefit of both. No exceptions.

    In all of history there is not a single example of religion and politics working together or in cooperation that did not produce more despair and hardship on the people than either religion or politics could accomplish individually.

    This covers the continual bloodfest that accompanies theocratic Islam.

    This is what drive the first European settlers to come to North America.

    This covers Roman Catholic complicity in death camps in the second world war.

    The slaughter of over a million protestants in France.

    The spanish inquisitions

    Even the napoleonic wars after his son was named Duke of Rome.

    The wars in Bosnia / Herzagovina /Albania/Croatia

    The crusades

    and on and on.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago you seriously think that the British gvt take any notice of the clergy when making decisions on legislation?

    We have made sure that neither religion nor monarchy can influence gvt. If you need an example, two issues come to mind: Gay marriage and abortion. Why shd religious views override human views?

    My son is gay and is marrying his partner this year, at last. We will all be going -

    One of my students was made pregnant in a gang-rape - I organised a termination for her. Her priest wanted her to keep an "alien" in her body for 8 months and then have it adopted!! Her words not mine. Normally, I do not agree with abortion is not black and white.

    We have democratic gvts - thank goodness and we are able to vote them out if they don't do what most of us want. As Churchill said it is wasn't the best form of government but better than any other.

    Think about North Korea! Do you fancy living there?

    We atheists are just as capable of caring for people as people of faith. We have fellow feeling and consciences which guides us. A capitalist economy makes everyone richer.....think about that too.



    Ma and grandma

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 years ago

    Your examples are perfectly OK.

    However here in Australia there have been cases where certain churches have have virtually demanded that their congregations vote for particular candidates. This has not happened for quite a long time but it has happened. In the mid 1950s we saw the virtual takeover of a certain party by a religious group. That party split into two camps.

    In the USA we see persistent attempts by some religious groups to interfere in public education.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Paul
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    Did you mean "interference?"

    Because religions make claims and decisions based on ignorant ancient superstitious nonsense.

    Not based on facts, evidence, and rational thought.

    So even if now and then (and it's rare) they come up with a decent idea, the methods they used to come up with that idea are worthless -- and not needed.

    You don't seriously think the ONLY people arguing for better care of the poor are religious clergy, do you? They're not.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Atheists: why are you against religious interferance in politics

    - Because I do not want ot be dictated to by a religious nut in office. Try reading your bible - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

    for example in recent years the tory party in england have neglected the poor and focused on the rich.

    - You have no awareness of the Pope and his many minions who live in a kings luxury while people right outside of the gates starve to death.

    the churches have criticized this and said that it should not be the case

    - Every INTELLIGENT person criticizes it.

    the catholic church at least recognizes that markets can not be free,

    - Especially when they control them.

    clergy also recognize the importance of welfare

    - The clergy recognize welfare to the clergy, very little else.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    Same reason im against Batmans interference in politics

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Wundt
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    I disagree with your assumption that religious leaders give politicians a "good telling off" about the right things. Margret Thatcher was a very devout Christian, who believed absolutely that what she was doing was in line with the teachings of her church.

    In the USA, we often see very bad laws written by conservative politicians, who use their belief in God and their religion to guide those decision. For example, there are now several states where 'devout Christian' politicians, with the support of local religious leaders, are trying to pass laws that say it is legal to discriminate because of religious beliefs. They are wasting millions of dollars and legislature time on such nonsense, while work that might help the poor or improve the state economy are shelved.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    No, what's his name, was it Aristotle? I don't remember, but one of the classic philosophers treated that topic well. Civil rule carries the weight of law, of force. The justification for that is our actions can hurt others, through homicide or theft. So the state therefore should regulate our actions.

    But man's relationship with his god does not affect others nor hurt anyone. Therefore it should not be subject to any constraints of law.

    Simple as that really - tho he of course said it much better, whoever I'm thinking of - and in about a hundred times more words.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Lili
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    Not everyone in a given country belongs to or believes in a given religious faith. Any attempt to base education or legislation on a tenets of a given faith is therefore going to be manifestly unfair to those who do not belong to it. The only fair approach in a non-theocratic state is to keep any one religion from influencing laws in its favor or in the favor of its specific views.

    Greater care for the poor or market regulation are secular issues, too. Secularists and religious people can work together on such things, since they do not involve specific religious beliefs. However, the Catholic Church cannot be allowed to decide, for example, whether insurance companies should cover contraception, nor can the Baptists decide what our children are taught in their science classes.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.